Who is Khlestakov in the auditor? Collaborative learning
The image of Khlestakov in N. V. Gogol’s comedy “The Inspector General”
Laughter is often a great mediator
in distinguishing truth from lies...
V. G. Belinsky
Khlestakov is the main character in N.V. Gogol’s comedy “The Inspector General” (1836). He is not only the central figure of the comedic action, but also represents the typical character. “Everyone, at least for a minute, if not for a few minutes,” said Gogol, “was or is being made by Khlestakov... And a clever guards officer will sometimes turn out to be Khlestakov, and a statesman... and our brother a writer...” It is this hero who most fully expresses that combination of extreme ambition and spiritual insignificance, arrogance and narcissism, which was characteristic of high-ranking officials. Khlestakov became the personification of a high-ranking official-auditor by mistake, but a natural mistake. His resemblance to a messenger from the “higher ups” was striking, which is why it misled such an experienced person as the mayor, and all those around him.
The mayor did not notice any differences in Khlestakov from those numerous auditors and high-ranking persons with whom he had met before. Of course, fear clouded his eyes and mind, but he probably experienced the same fear during other visits of “big” people. Consequently, the point here is not only fear, but also the fact that Khlestakov could really be mistaken for an auditor.
It was no coincidence that Gogol brought to the stage in the role of an imaginary auditor a man living in St. Petersburg and serving in the department. Khlestakov was born of bureaucratic-aristocratic Petersburg. He absorbed into himself, like a sponge, all those negative phenomena that filled the capital’s society.
The son of a poor Saratov landowner, Khlestaov, serving in the department as a petty official (“elistrate”), wants to live in grand style, indulge in entertainment, diligently imitating secular dandies, and pluck flowers of pleasure. “Father will send money, something to hold it with - and where!.. He went on a spree... instead of going to office, and he goes for a walk along the avenue, plays cards,” says Osip’s servant about him.
Khlestakov, insignificant both by origin and position, must play the role of a respectable official. The main character qualities of this character are irresponsibility and bragging. Having squandered all his money and significantly spent money on the road, he nevertheless imagines how nice it would be to drive up to the house in a luxurious carriage, and dress up his servant Osip in livery, and how everyone would come to attention just at the mere mention of his name - Ivan Alexandrovich Khlestakov from St. Petersburg.
Even while courting the tavern servant, begging him for lunch, Khlestakov behaves arrogantly. Without paying anything for the hotel, he makes claims to the owner, who does not want to understand that this is not an ordinary person: “You explain to him seriously that I need to eat. .. He thinks that just as he, a man, is okay if he doesn’t eat for a day, so is it for others too. News!" Having difficulty obtaining an extension of the loan from the hotel owner, he begins to behave even more impudently: he doesn’t like the food, and everyone around him is a swindler and thieves.
Khlestakov's warlike ardor fades away as soon as he learns of the mayor's arrival. He fears that the head of the city will send him straight to prison. However, the timidity of the mayor in front of the imaginary auditor reinforces Khlestakov’s unceremoniousness: “What right do you have? How dare you? Yes, here I am... I serve in St. Petersburg...” He suddenly realizes that Skvoznik-Dmukhanovsky is not going to put him in prison, but, on the contrary, intends to provide him with all kinds of services, mistaking him for a “high-flying bird.”
The image of the mayor receives its brilliant conclusion in the fifth act of the comedy. And here Gogol uses the principle of sharp switches, moving from the defeat of the hero to his triumph, and then from triumph to the dethronement of the hero. In an atmosphere of universal admiration, Khlestakov literally blossoms. In the third act of the comedy, he is shown in the moments of his takeoff. With ecstasy, Khlestakov paints pictures of his imaginary life in front of shocked listeners. He does not lie out of any clear motives or clear goals. Lightness of mind does not allow him to make serious calculations regarding the consequences of his actions. He lies out of empty vanity, he lies to boast of his “high” position, he lies because he is at the mercy of his fantasy. He reveals to the heroes of the comedy and to the audience his dream, which he would like to achieve, but he himself passes it off as reality.
Khlestakov has already made everyone believe that he is an important person, and therefore he takes the warm welcome for granted. At first he has no idea that he is being mistaken for some kind of important person. After officials began supplying him with money, he began to realize that he was being mistaken for another person. However, this does not prevent Khlestakov from still experiencing pleasure from everything that happens.
In the fourth act of the comedy, Gogol shows how Khlestakov organizes a fundraiser, receives gifts from officials and merchants, and deals with complaints from townspeople. Nothing bothers Khlestakov: he feels neither fear nor remorse. Apparently, it is not particularly difficult for this person to commit any meanness, any deception. He performs the functions without a shadow of embarrassment important official and is ready to thoughtlessly decide the fate of people.
With extraordinary ease, Khlestakov switches from the “state” sphere to the lyrical plane. As soon as the visitors disappear from his field of vision, he immediately forgets about them. The arrival of Marya Antonovna immediately puts Khlestakov in a romantic mood. And here he acts without realizing where the events will lead him. “Lyrical” scenes reveal the character of the hero from a new side. In his explanations with Marya Antonovna and Anna Andreevna, Khlestakov appears as a person using a wretched set of vulgar tricks and banal sayings. The hero's love explanations emphasize his lack of living human feelings.
It is not for nothing that Gogol, giving instructions on how to play his hero, emphasized that he should turn out to be a liar, a coward and a clicker in all respects.
The objective meaning and significance of this image is that it represents an indissoluble unity of “significance” and insignificance, huge claims and inner emptiness.
It is also very significant that the image of Khlestakov is closely related to the images of other characters in the play. The mayor, Zemlyaika, and Lyapkin-Tyapkin have Khlestakov qualities. They are expressed in a complete lack of moral principles, in exorbitant claims, in the desire to play the role of a person of a rank higher than one’s own, in the ability to commit any meanness.
I. S. Turgenev saw in the image of Khlestakov “the triumph of poetic truth.” He said that “... the name of Khlestakov loses its randomness and becomes common noun" Khlestakovism is a manifestation of arrogance, frivolity, inner emptiness, irresponsibility and deceit. This phenomenon has acquired a broad social and psychological meaning. The image of Khlestakov belongs to the number of such - found and guessed phenomena of life.
Khlestakov – central character comedies. The writer managed to portray a hero who contributes to the development of the action. This was Gogol's innovation, since, despite the fact that Khlestakov is neither a reasoning hero, nor a conscious deceiver, nor a hero of a love affair, his image motivates the development of the plot. Gogol finds a new impulse that contributes to this development. In his comedy, everything rests on a situation of self-deception, which becomes possible precisely thanks to such a hero.
The image of Khlestakov is the embodiment
Perfect emptiness and perfect stupidity. We can say that it lacks its own content. He is a selfless person without inner filling. Therefore, he can easily transform and play the roles that are imposed on him. Khlestakov is weaving an intrigue, but we see that he himself is not aware of this. He rejoices at the honors shown to him and does not even try to find out the reason for such a ceremonial reception; he does not suspect that he was mistaken for an auditor; he simply does what those around him suggest - and through his actions he further establishes himself in their eyes as an official from St. Petersburg.
Khlestakov does not so much consciously or deliberately deceive the heroes of the comedy as mislead them. At the first meeting with the mayor, he tries to intimidate him so as not to end up in prison, although he himself is no less frightened. In the house of the Governor, Khlestakov lies just as unintentionally; he strives to rise in the eyes of his listeners and therefore invents a dizzying career for himself from a minor official to a field marshal. In addition to the role of auditor, commander-in-chief, and head of the department, he also takes on the guise of a benefactor for the city, a writer, and even the fiancé of Marya Antonovna, the mayor’s daughter. He takes on one form or another in accordance with the situation in which he finds himself; and therefore we can say that he is practically invulnerable. It can be compared to a chameleon, which changes its color not for fun, but for survival.
A similar definition of its essence is reflected in Khlestakov’s comparison with water taking the shape of the vessel into which it was poured, which was accurately noted by Yu. Mann. Thanks to the sincerity and sincerity with which Khlestakov plays the roles imposed on him, he easily gets out of any situation that could catch him in a lie. Marya Antonovna recalls that “Yuri Miloslavsky” is the work of Mr. Zagoskin, while the newly appointed auditor claims that he is its author. What about Khlestakov? And on the fly he comes up with an excuse for this discrepancy, explaining this by the presence of two works with the same title. Khlestakov once again admits inaccuracy in his simple lie when, intoxicated by wine and his sudden success, he utters the line: “When you run up the stairs to your fourth floor, you only say to the cook: “Here, Mavrushka, overcoat.” But the officials do not notice this an oversight, they take it for a slip of the tongue. They encourage Khlestakov in his lies, thinking that by doing so they will recognize him. In their acceptance of the nonsense they have invented as truth, and the truth as lies, lies the most comic (and tragic) in the work.
The portrait of Khlestakov is created by the author using the comment he gave at the beginning of the comedy in “Notes for Gentlemen Actors,” replicas of other characters and his own words. Thus, the following image appears before the reader: a young man of about twenty-three, “somewhat stupid and, as they say, without a king in his head, - one of those people who in the offices are called empty... His speech is abrupt, and the words fly out of his mouth completely suddenly". Even his servant Osip does not consider his master a worthwhile person, but sees in him just a simple “elistrate”. When the Mayor first sees this nondescript, short man in front of him, whom he “would crush with his fingernail,” he begins to doubt what is standing in front of him. a real auditor. But since, due to the hasty reasoning of the officials, they decided that an auditor had actually appeared in the city incognito, since Khlestakov is the only visitor so far, and he is behaving strangely, the Mayor and the rest of the officials do not pay attention to the discrepancy between his appearance and the position he “occupies.” . Thus, the image of Khlestakov is shown in detail against the background of city officials, which allows us to consider his personality also in comparison with other characters. His stupidity and emptiness are shown in comparison with the stupidity of officials, and it remains to be seen which of them loses in this comparison.
The image of Khlestakov created by Gogol contributes to the penetration of mirage intrigue into the comedy, the meaning of which lies in depicting the pursuit of officials by the mirage, in their wasting their strength. Thanks to the mirage intrigue, Khlestakov’s demonic essence is revealed. He, like the devil, takes on the form offered to him by the petitioner and creates the illusion of fulfilling the request. Also, something mystical can be seen in the unexpected appearance of Khlestakov and in his sudden departure - from nowhere to nowhere.
Khlestakov is a capacious and deep image that contains great human truth. The Khlestakovs have not yet disappeared, and it is not for nothing that his name has become a household name. Much has already been said about the fact that Khlestakov is essentially an empty person. But how much interesting and instructive we take away from his image and how deeply he makes us think about ourselves!..
To use presentation previews, create a Google account and log in to it: https://accounts.google.com
Slide captions:
Khlestakov - “nobleman” and “ significant person"(analysis of the third act) 1
Retelling of the events of phenomena 1 – 3, acts III. Khlestakov says. Artist A. Konstantinovsky. 2
What feelings do his wife and daughter experience as they wait for someone to appear who could tell them about the visiting auditor? How do they behave? Anna Andreevna and Maria Antonovna. Artist P. Boklevsky. 3
What is important for Anna Andreevna? Why do mother and daughter contradict each other when choosing an outfit? Anna Andreevna and Maria Antonovna. Artist P. Boklevsky. 4
Expressive reading on the roles of phenomena 5 – 6, acts III. Khlestakov says. Artist A. Konstantinovsky. 5
Why did Khlestakov begin to lie so inspiredly? Khlestakov. Artist P. Boklevsky. 6
Research work with the text Officials, Anna Andreevna, Maria Antonovna Khlestakov “We are even more pleased to see such a person.” “How can you, sir, you do a lot of honor. I don't deserve this. I live in the village." Mayor: “The rank is such that you can still stand.” “You also publish them in magazines, right? Tell me, were you Brambeus?” “For mercy, madam, it’s quite the opposite: it’s even more pleasant for me.” “You, madam, deserve it. Yes, the village, however, also has its own hills and streams...” “No ranks, please sit down.” “Well, brother, we completely took you for the commander-in-chief.” “Yes, and I publish them in magazines... Why, I correct articles for all of them...” 7
Research work with the text Officials, Anna Andreevna, Maria Antonovna Khlestakov “So, right, and “Yuri Miloslavsky” is your essay?” “I think with what taste and splendor the balls are given there.” “This is Mr. Zagoskin’s composition.” “The mayor and others timidly rise from their chairs.” “Yes, this is my essay” “Just don’t say it. On the table, for example, there is a watermelon - a watermelon costs seven hundred rubles...” “Oh yes, it’s true, it’s definitely Zagoskina; and there is another “Yuri Miloslavsky”, so that’s mine.” “The State Council itself is afraid of me.” 8
Results of the work Did Khlestakov manage to “meet” the expectations of those present? The hero ate and drank well. He's happy. According to the habit of a “little man,” he wants to please nice people, so he is ready to do and tell them everything that they want to hear from him. Khlestakov - A. Gorev. Performance at the Moscow Art Theater. 1908 9
Is it possible to say that Khlestakov’s imagination is brilliantly bold? The imagination is terribly wretched, but daring, bold in its wretchedness—brilliantly wretched. Nowhere does Khlestakov go beyond the limits of his horizons, his level of understanding. Khlestakov - B. Babochkin. 1936 10
Why do officials believe such nonsense? How do you understand Dobchinsky’s words: “Yes, you know, when a nobleman speaks, you feel fear?” Khlestakov - P. Boklevsky. 1858 11
Does Khlestakov himself believe at this moment that his person causes fear among others? He now speaks only in commanding shouts of a scolding tone, he “sharply” shouts at them; but they are both in age and in rank above him; but they made an idol out of him, to whom everything is allowed. Khlestakov - V. Samoilov. 1897 12
What is the author of the comedy thinking about when showing Khlestakov’s “transformations”? N.V. Gogol shows how real “significant persons” are created - by an absurd mistake, by the stupid fear of the environment that creates an idol for itself. Khlestakov - I. Ilyinsky. 1938 13
Homework 1. Read Act IV of the comedy. 2. Prepare a retelling of scenes with merchants, a mechanic, and a non-commissioned officer. 3. Expressive reading based on the roles of phenomena 3 – 7. 14
On the topic: methodological developments, presentations and notes
Literature 8th grade Student's last name:_____________________ Khlestakov in the assessment of city residents N Fill in the columns of the table, answering questions, completing tasks: 1. How lies ...
"The Fate of Man" - embodiment tragic fate Russian people during the Great Patriotic War(based on the story by M. A. Sholokhov “The Fate of Man”)...
Patapenko S. N. (Vologda), Ph.D., Associate Professor, Vologda State Pedagogical University / 2003
It seems that the brainchild named Ivan and the surname Khlestakov worried Gogol more acutely than his other creations. The writer constantly peered at it, as if trying to explain the essence of the image not only to prying ears and eyes, but also to himself.
In the “Notes for Gentlemen Actors” this fact is not yet so obvious. Gogol characterizes Khlestakov along with others actors. At the same time, he highlights the unpresentable lightness of Ivan Aleksandrovich’s physical appearance (“thin, skinny”) in contrast to the solidity and “seriousness” of Gorodnichy’s figure and emphasizes the same intellectual inconsistency (“somewhat stupid”, “without a king in his head”, “empty”, “ speaks and acts without any consideration"). But already here there is one difference in the preliminary outline of the image of Khlestakov in comparison with other characters. Only to the performer of this role does the author consider it necessary to give additional advice to avoid obsessive theatricality and demands extreme organicity: “The more the person performing this role shows sincerity and simplicity, the more he will win” (IV,).
In his review of the first performance of the play, Gogol speaks mainly about Khlestakov. “Is it really not clear from the role itself what Khlestakov is? Or was blind pride taking possession of me prematurely, and my strength to control this character was so weak that not even a shadow or a hint of it remained for the actor?” - the writer exclaims in “a sad and annoyingly painful feeling” (). What irritates the playwright most of all is that Dur, Khlestakov’s first performer, wrote the role into the traditional series of “vaudeville rascals”, without seeing any fundamental differences from the images of ordinary and resourceful deceivers, whom the stage of that time knew so well and in the reflection of whose characters the closest literary works were decided “relatives” of Ivan Alexandrovich in Russian literature (“A Visitor from the Capital, or Turmoil in a District Town” by G. Kvitka-Osnovyanenko, “Provincial Actors” by A. Veltman, “The Inspectors, or Glorious Tambourines Beyond the Mountains” by N. Polevoy). Having complained about the misunderstanding, Gogol carefully explains: “Khlestakov is not cheating at all; he is not a liar by trade, he himself forgets that he is lying, and already believes what he says. He... speaks from the heart, speaks completely frankly<...>Khlestakov lies not at all coldly or fanforon-style - theatrically; he lies with feeling, his eyes express the pleasure he receives from this. This is generally the best and most poetic moment of his life - almost a kind of inspiration<...>The features of Khlestakov’s role are too flexible” (). The conclusion sounds like this: “What is it, if you really look at it, Khlestakov? A young man... empty... but containing many qualities, belonging to people <...>Everyone, at least for a minute, if not several minutes, was or is being made by Khlestakov” ().
Gogol persistently repeats this same thought in “A warning for those who would like to play The Inspector General properly”: “The actor especially should not lose sight of this desire to show off, which all people are more or less infected with and which was most reflected in Khlestakov " (). The writer also draws attention to the fact that in his character “everything is surprise and surprise” and that he is “a phantasmagoric face, a face that, like a lying, personified deception, was carried away, along with the troika, God knows where...” ().
In “The Inspector General’s Denouement,” Gogol focuses on the symbolic interpretation of his play and in this context sees in Khlestakov the personification of a “flighty secular conscience,” specifying that this is a “venal and deceptive conscience” (). And he unjustifiably insistently calls several times: “With Khlestakov on your arm, you won’t see anything in our soulful city<...>Not with Khlestakov, but with a real auditor, let’s look at ourselves!<...>You will find everything in yourself, if only you descend into your soul not with Khlestakov” (). As if it could or could occur to someone to choose Khlestakov as a moral guide in life.
Summarizing the author's tips, we note: Gogol highlights in Khlestakov the ability to deceive without a consciously set goal of this kind, the universality of his desire to try on the mask of another, more significant existence and the ability to look organically in this mask, the improvisational ease and emotional persuasiveness of his involuntary lies. Ultimately, we are even talking about the presence of an inspired, creative principle in Khlestakov’s behavior.
It is significant that many studies and reflections concerning the image of Khlestakov also note the importance of creative potential for understanding the essence of this character. Here are some of these observations: “a poet in a moment of rapture with his own boasting” (Ap. Grigoriev; cited in: 1; 170); “He successfully played the role of an auditor... He is like water, taking the form of any vessel” (Yu. Mann; 4; 226), “Khlestakov was conceived by Gogol... as a great artist who entered into the role of exactly who he is taken for in the little town" (S. Sergeev - Tsensky; quoted from: 4; 225). V. Nabokov sees “the iridescence of nature” and “the ecstasy of fiction” in Khlestakov, saying that Ivan Aleksandrovich is “in his own way a dreamer and endowed with a certain deceptive charm” (8; 68). Yu. M. Lotman, inscribing Khlestakov into the “world of extra-textual reality,” identifies in Russian culture of the post-Petrine period a “peculiar two-worldness,” which consists in the fact that ideal ideas about life did not have to coincide with reality. The “ideal life” was played mainly outside the official and state spheres (although “Potemkin villages” in this context can well be considered as an expansion of the boundaries of the game world, the penetration of its rules to all levels of reality). By the beginning of the nineteenth century. the situation was dramatized: a person was faced with the problem of choosing “between practical activity, but alien to ideals, or ideal activity, but developing outside of practical life (3; 339). A person who did not want to give up his dreams lived them out “in the imagination, replacing real actions with words.” The need for fiction is becoming a feature of the times among people of different personal levels, from the artistically gifted to the mediocre. The concepts of lies and creative imagination become intertwined, and attraction to them becomes a feature of “not individual, but historical psychology.” But speaking not about social Khlestakovism, but about Khlestakov the character, the researcher still considers it necessary to emphasize: “Having adopted any mode of behavior, Khlestakov instantly achieves perfection in it... Khlestakov is undoubtedly gifted with the talent of imitation” (3; 349 ).
V. Markovich expands the boundaries of the talent of this nature, seeing in it a manifestation of the natural carnival element. In Markovich’s observations, the emphasis generally shifts towards discovering the archetypal play principle in the image: “Obsession reaches the level of inspiration in him, the spirit of improvisation awakens, in Khlestakov, or, more precisely, through him, the artistic forces of life begin to act. The element of festive, playful theatricality is noticeably concentrated here...” (5; 159).
V. Mildon, following the symbolist-Meyerhold tradition, sees in the image of Khlestakov the awakening not of festive, but of demonic forces, which does not prevent him from calling Ivan Alexandrovich “Mozart”, “pure intuitive genius” (7;104).
What is it in the structure of Khlestakov’s image that makes us insistently talk about creative ferment, the bewitching magnetism of his behavior?
In the playbill, in accordance with the principle of social hierarchy, Khlestakov is listed last on the list of officials. This is completely justified in the light of subsequent information about the “simple little elistratishka,” i.e. in the social cosmos the character occupies the lowest level (even Akakiy Bashmachkin had the rank of 9th class - in contrast to Khlestakov’s 14th).
The name Khlestakov delighted V. Nabokov, who argued that “it was brilliantly invented, because in the Russian ear it creates a feeling of lightness, thoughtlessness, chatter, the whistle of a thin cane, the slapping of cards on the table, the bragging of a scoundrel and the daring of a conqueror of hearts...” (8; 68). The ear also catches the phonetic similarity of the surnames of Gogol’s character and Griboyedov’s old woman Khlestova, their relationship with the verb “whip”, which leaves a more weighty and rude feeling than “whistle” and “spank”. For Famusov’s sister-in-law, a representative of the female omnipotence of Moscow, who allows herself not only to “have her own judgment,” but also to express it out loud without embarrassment or hesitation, the meaning of the “speaking” surname is beyond doubt. But what about the “wick” from St. Petersburg? Is the threatening phonetics of the surname the same mirage as Khlestakov’s high rank? For some time, it seems so, until the Mayor’s phrase about the non-commissioned officer’s wife (“she flogged herself”) acquires a deep meaningful meaning in relation to everything that happened in the city of N. The district residents, mistaking the petty official for an important bird and showing him all conceivable and inconceivable honors “flogged themselves.” Khlestakov acted as an involuntary instrument in this session of socio-psychological masochism, fully justifying his “speaking” surname.
It is also worth paying attention to the name. Of course, I immediately remember the hero of Russian folklore, Ivan the Fool, who ultimately leaves everyone else a fool. This favorite character from Russian fairy tales can also appear in the form of epic hero(then he is of royal origin), and in a more democratic version. E. Meletinsky notes that in this case the character does not show any hope, occupies a low social position, is despised by everyone, but unexpectedly accomplishes a heroic feat or receives the support of magical forces and achieves his goal. “The image of Ivan can be both heroic and comic. In essence, it varies between the “fool” - genuine and the “fool” - cunning,” writes the researcher (6; 226). Using Gorky’s term, the folklorist calls the comic version of the “genuine fool” “ironic success.”
Ivan Khlestakov may well be considered as a typological brother of the “ironic successor” or as a literary modification of this folklore image. All the characteristics are present: low social status, complete contempt on the part of others (before the residents of the city of N, no one gave a damn about Khlestakov, not even his own servant), unexpected intervention of magical forces. But when moving from fairy-tale space to literary text magic acquired a number of social and psychological motivations - such as fear of superiors, “electricity of rank” - providing Khlestakov with a situation of triumph. But there is in the mechanism of “magic” that supported the petty official, and his own merit, purely Khlestakov’s witchcraft, which is enhanced by self-blinding county officials and gives rise to a mysterious, infernal situation.
Khlestakov appears in the play only in the second act. Before this, Gogol resorted to the method of absentee exposition of the hero, and a two-stage one. First we learn about him from the words of Dobchinsky and Bobchinsky. In addition to the information that Khlestakov is traveling from St. Petersburg to Saratov and has been living in a hotel for the second week without paying, the city landowners cite external signs of his behavior: “... he walks around the room like that, and there’s a kind of reasoning in his face... physiognomy... actions... and here (twirls his hand near his forehead) there are many, many things<...>So observant: he looked at everything. He saw that... we were eating salmon... so he looked into our plates..." (IV,). Nervous mobility, peremptory curiosity and a desire for picturesque behavior are visible in this description.
Then the servant Osip will talk about the owner, revealing the deplorable state of his affairs (there is no money, there is nowhere to wait for help), and will describe how he lived in St. Petersburg. Noteworthy is the hero’s passion for card games (“instead of being in office... he plays cards”) and his love for the theater (“father will send money... every day you deliver a ticket to the theater”). Even on the road, these passions haunt Khlestakov. “He gets acquainted with a passing person, and then plays cards - now you’ve finished the game!” - this is how the passion for playing cards is realized, and the passion for the stage - the theatricalization of life. “You need to show yourself in every city,” concludes Osip (IV,).
The main performance, which showed Khlestakov’s capabilities in all its glory, took place in the city of N, when officials themselves built a stage for this theater lover, staged the situation and distributed the roles. Khlestakov turned out to be a talented artist. With his appearance, everything that happened took on the character of carnival unrestraint and confusion. Here you can simultaneously declare your love for mother and daughter (it’s not the subject that’s important, but the process), be “on friendly terms with Pushkin,” and feel your complete impunity.
The situation that arose after Khlestakov’s “appointment” to the role of auditor changes the spatiotemporal boundaries of the work. To the provincial Russian life the spirit of the ancient Roman Saturnalia penetrates with their emphasis on the “inversion” of social relations, the temporary rejection of what is assigned to a person social status. The prospect of the events shifting into the carnival element was indicated at the end of the first act by the behavior of the Mayor, who out of excitement put a paper case on his head instead of a hat. The appearance of Khlestakov fully realizes the emerging prospect.
Bringing Ivan Alexandrovich onto the stage, Gogol considers it necessary to once again emphasize the character’s craving for theatricalization. The desire to constantly be in an invented image makes Khlestakov forget about the forced abstinence from food. Even nausea from hunger cannot stop his desire to master new roles. Having sent a servant to beg for lunch, Khlestakov, within the framework of his short monologue, manages to adapt to two roles at once.
First, a footman is depicted, who is instructed to be surprised and obsequiously greet Ivan Alexandrovich. At the same time, the remark “stretching out” indicates the plastic development of the image. Then he returns to his own appearance in an instantly invented situation of courting “some pretty” daughter of a neighboring landowner. The remark “shuffles his foot” again draws attention to the fact that the situation “I imagine”, formulated by Khlestakov in this monologue, is not limited to verbal description - Ivan Aleksandrovich immediately begins to master it physically. Khlestakov seems to be looking for an image that is interesting for himself and so far cannot find the necessary proposed circumstances.
Khlestakov’s inner emptiness, his lack of an individual-personal beginning have been repeatedly noted as the most important characteristic image. “Speaks quickly, moves quickly, almost flies - empty in the heart, empty in the head,” deduces Khlestakov’s characterological formula M. Chekhov, one of best performers this role (10; 395).
Combined with the character's desire for reincarnation, his emptiness becomes fundamentally important. Even the ancient Hellenes saw in the emptiness of chaos a potential wealth of perspectives, a combination of nothing and everything (zero and infinity). Khlestakov’s emptiness is also promising. It is perceived as a necessary condition for further acting. To put on masks and be convincing at the same time, it is by no means necessary to have a face.
The uncertainty and inconsistency of Khlestakov’s behavior in the scene of the first meeting with the Governor (at one time he is dissolute and impudent, at another time he is pleading and pitiful) is explained by the fact that for the time being he does not know his acting task. As soon as it is determined, Khlestakov finds ground under his feet. He becomes convincing and... free. The fear that fetters all the characters in the play recedes from him.
Here he is separated from others, falls out of the system of universal fear. Inspired lies, the unbridled flowering of fantasy (even within the framework of pathetic ideas about the life of high-ranking officials) take Khlestakov to a different level of human existence - here they are, the “empyreans”, where there are no worries about their daily bread, no need to reckon with others, where everything is as exactly what you want. The playful ecstasy achieved by Khlestakov in the scene of lying frees him from fear. Here, according to the observation of V. Markovich, “the creative inspiration of the hero and the author” comes together (5; 159). In other words, a receptive situation of aesthetic delight arises, born from a feeling of completeness of the author's self-realization. Khlestakov’s physical lightness and his “extraordinary lightness of thought” acquire the weightlessness of floating in creative space - the character visibly becomes a “phantasmagoric face”, the personification of the beginning of the game.
J. Huizinga, exploring the phenomenon of play as the basis for the development of culture, defines its main parameters: exclusion from everyday life, a predominantly joyful tone of activity, spatial and temporal limitation, a combination of strict certainty and true freedom (9; 34). All these characteristics are found in Khlestakov’s situation.
Through mastering different roles, he constantly switches off from everyday life in order to forget about his “smallness”; changing masks gives him pleasure; reality breaks into his dreams from time to time, and he is forced to limit his acting sketches spatially and temporally. As for compliance with certain rules, Khlestakov’s natural acting talent, clearly embedded in the structure of the image, forces him to intuitively follow the sequence of stages of work on the role: mastering the proposed circumstances, emotionally and sensually getting used to the acting task, searching for external means of expressiveness. Ultimately, thanks to the childish spontaneity of faith in the reality of what was invented, Khlestakov achieves improvisational lightness, free floating, the moment of truth. But a truth that is not associated with a moral principle. This is what, perhaps, worried Gogol when he convinced that his character was “a corrupt and deceptive conscience.”
Having created in Khlestakov the image of a “playing man,” Gogol realized that the playful, creative element of existence does not want to obey any laws - it is complete freedom from everything. Huizinga also insists on self-sufficiency, “far-reaching independence of the game.” The researcher undertakes to assert that “the game lies outside the disjunction of wisdom and stupidity”, “it does not know the difference between truth and lies”, the game “does not contain any moral function - neither virtue nor sin” (9; 16).
It is possible that Gogol, with his commitment to the educational concept of the theater-department, was afraid of such a discovery; he did not want to put up with it.
However, the birth of Khlestakov has already taken place. The “ironic lucky man” became a “playing man”, revealing the creative principle in himself as an ontological riddle.
Literature
1. Voitolovskaya E. L. Comedy by N. V. Gogol: Commentary. - L., 1971.
2. Lotman Yu. M. About Khlestakov // Lotman Yu. M. Izbr. articles: In 3 volumes - T. 1. - Tallinn, 1992.
3. Mann Yu. V. Poetics of Gogol. - M. 1978.
4. Markovich V. M. Comedy by N. V. Gogol “The Inspector General” // Analysis dramatic work: Interuniversity collection. - L., 1988.
5. Meletinsky E. M. Hero fairy tale. - M., 1958.
6. Mildon V.I. “Such a scam land” // Mildon V.I. An abyss has opened... - M., 1992.
7. Nabokov V. Nikolai Gogol // Nabokov V. Lectures on Russian literature. - M., 1996.
8. Huizinga J. Homo Ludens. - M., 1992.
9. Chekhov M. Literary heritage: In 2 volumes - T. 2. - M., 1986.
